Einstein Was Wrong - Who Was Right?

Einstein Was Wrong – Who Was Right?

Abstract

Dissidents have spent lots of time on Einstein, but has not observed what happened when Einstein was only 3 years old. At that time Potier wrote a paper, stating that Michelson’s prediction for his experiments, (MMX), with Morley, were interpreted in error by Michelson. Michelson had assumed light to take the fastest – not shortest – way between mirrors, and therefore, wave fronts always are parallel to mirrors in MMX. This means no effect in the transverse arm. However, Potier had a different opinion and stated that transverse ether wind could change the behavior of light and force light to take a longer way.

Since mirrors in MMX have relevance for light only – and not for the ether wind – we can see that Michelson was right. Michelson’s correct prediction was based on wave behavior in both arms of the equipment. Potier reintroduced a particle reasoning in the transverse arm only, and did not see that light behavior is unchanged in the ether’s frame. The increased path length is instead in the frame of the equipment. Potier’s wrong idea got support from most scientists – but not from Michelson. So, Michelson was the last scientist that was right regarding MMX prediction. Poitier’s error supported the Lorentz transform, but Michelson’s interpretation is in agreement to the Galilean transform.

So, the wave or particle paradox, and the twin paradox, are both results of Potier’s paper.

Einstein Was Wrong – Who Was Right? (24)

Einstein in his calculation of shift of the interference fringes in the Michelson-Morley experiment states that the speed of light in an interferometer arm is calculated as c+v, which is in contradiction with the law of the constant speed of light on which Einstein made the basis for his Theory of Relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed in air, and the speed of light in the interferometer arms is according to the Law of light refraction index in air, the same on both arms of the interferometer arms and referred to as c/n and not calculated as c. Throughout the entire time of the rotation of the interferometer, the speed of light was identical and constant in both inter-ferometer arms and equal to c/n. Therefore, the phase shift of rays of light from the interferometer arms and the resulting shift of interference fringes were not observed! If we calculate the speed of light according to the Laws of Optics, no contraction of the length of the interferometer’s arms can be observed from the calculation of the propagation of light. In order to explain why the interference fringes were not shifted during the interferometer rotation, Lorentz stated the contraction of the arm of the interferometer in the direction of interferometer movement relative to ether. Einstein in his work [2] on page 119 cites: “Guided by purely formal points of view, H. A. Lorentz was the first to introduce that the particles constituting the electron experience a contraction in the direction of motion…” In the Theory of propagation of light, Lorentz ignores the Laws of Optics!

Jozef
I guess that Einstein realized that MMX is a useless test. However, I regard him as wrong when he concluded impossibility from a lot of failures. When we have made a lot of failures the best thing for surviving is to give up. But this does not mean that we have increased science. That is only wishful thinking.

Einstein in his book; The Theory of Relativity [2], on page 96, in the section dealing with light propagation in air refers to the speed of light in air along its trajectory: “Of course we must refer to the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system lets us choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. “A ray of light will be sent along the embankment…” He continues: “If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c …” This description of the light propagation on the embankment is false. Einstein’s assumption “We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed….” is only Einstein’s thought. It is not possible to create a vacuum around the embankment; vacuum can only be produced in a laboratory. In the described calculation of the time in which the light passes along the trajectory in the air the law of the light refractive index must be taken into account, where the speed of light is c/n, not c. This is Einstein’s error in his Theory of Relativity!

Einstein in his work [3] on page 110, quotes a speech in London: “The law of a constant speed of light in vacuum with the same value in all inertial frames of reference, as documented by developments in electrodynamics and optics and proven by the famous Michelson experiment (principle of special relativity), has resulted in the fact that the concept of time must be regarded as…..”. In optics, the speed of light in matter is calculated respecting the Law of the light refractive index. The results measured in the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot prove a constant value of speed of light in vacuum since the experiment was performed in the air. In the experiment, there was no vacuum and that’s why the calculation with the speed of light in vacuum in the Michelson-Morley experiment is Einstein’s error!
I have measured the speed of light in vacuum with the Michelson interferometer by taking into account the Laws of Optics. The measurement is described in an article published in the American Journal of Scientific Research (ASRE, 2016, Vol. 1) available at:http://escipub.com/Articles/AJSRE/Vol1/Babiak-AJSRE-2016.

You are not commenting on the subject. Instead you are advocating another subject.

I do not accept the idea that atmosphere is the reason. If you had read my article you would find that my explanation is that MMX is interpreted in error.
Michelson: independent of source motion in BOTH arms. Potier: dependent on source motion ONLY in transverse arm.

The interferometric measurements of the light speed differences made by Michelson were correct. However, so far they are mistakenly interpreted. These measurements were made in the air, not in vacuum. Measurements in the air never showed any differences in speed of light because the light that propagates in the air as a fixed medium.
Proof of this are the interferometric measurements made by Dayton Miller at Mt. Wilson, who obtained different values ​​from zero values. The reason was that at this point the atmospheric pressure was about 3/4 of the pressure at sea level. At this height, the effect of vacuum has already been marked. Unfortunately, these measurements were considered incorrect by Mr. Einstein. He based his famous postulates on the results of Michelson’s research and carelessly extrapolated their results in vacuum. I consider it to be Einstein’s biggest insult. Scientists of the whole world in his erroneous, internally contradictory and absurd postulates believe and still believe.
Greetings Tornad

You state that “Potier reintroduced a particle reasoning in the transverse arm only and did not see that
light behavior is unchanged in the ether’s frame.”

I think you’re making a thinking error here, let me explain: Potier must have concluded that if the MMX-equipment moves with speed v through the ether the beam-splitter (45 deg half-mirror) also moves with this speed, that’s trivial. Now if you apply the Huygens-Fresnel principle on the propagation of waves on a MOVING mirror you’ll find that the reflected ray is no longer straight up but tilted towards the direction the mirror travels. This is just what comes out if you search for a path that satisfies the same-distances-travelled condition and you can easily check this for yourself (just draw a picture).

So he correctly concluded that behavior (direction) of light is changed in the ether’s frame and whatever he did was in agreement with one of the oldest laws of nature concerning propagation of wave fronts, or in other words: light behavior.

A little more background: this ray that is reflected off of a moving beam-splitter has a magnitude c (naturally, this is wave propagation) with a horizontal component v and a vertical component of sqrt(c^2-v^2). These vector components can be mathematically derived when satisfying the conditions of the Huygens-Fresnel principle and length contraction of the mirror in the direction of its movement.

Armand
I think that your reasonings are correct. However, in my opinion, they are not relevant, since I regard the transverse mirrors to define which plane mirrors are moving many times forth and back and constitute the standing waves in the cavity defined by the transverse mirrors. I suspect that if your effect is relevant it should produce a full effect – and not a half effect. In some derivations a spherical wave been assumed. I think that this also is wrong. Even if, perhaps, the driving waves are spherical we nevertheless should regard the wave fronts in the standing waves as plane. Therefore, in my opinion, the wave fronts always are parallel to defining mirrors in both arms. This means also that speed along optical axis is always c in ether’s frame. Therefore equal to sqrt(c^2+v^2) in equipment’s frame in transverse arm and c+/-v in equipment’s frame in longitudinal arm. This means that ether wind vhas no effect on light behavior in relation to the ether. The ‘invention’ of tilting means that v can change behavior of light (direction). This is a particle behavior. Remember that we know that v/c cannot be 10^-4, but perhaps 10^-6.
There are no vertical components in MMX. We have longitudinal and transverse in relation to the ether wind.
There is no effect in the transverse arm and MMX supports the Galilean transform. There is no time dilation and contraction of matter is not GAMMMA, but squared GAMMA.

WE must see the difference between ray direction c (relevant in coherent systems) and beam direction c+v (observable only in focused light.
In stellar aberration planetary motion u not v is relavant. this means 10^-4 times c. Speed is sqrt(c^2+u^2). Obs sign!
With best regards from
John-Erik

I find you reply very confusing. I never heard of standing waves in relation to MMX. Is that an experimental fact and can you reference any source on this?

After first thoughts I don’t know what to make of standing waves in this respect either. Standing in relation to what? If I assume ether that then this could only happen when the equipment happens to be standing still against ether. Because only then the forward and return path in the transverse arm would coincide and in the longitudinal arm the forward speed would be equal but opposite to the speed of the return path. Both are conditions for standing waves to form. And how do I interpret fig 1 in your paper where you depict mirror-parallel wave fronts with speed c in the transverse direction? If they were really standing the speed would be 0 I would think.

Then a final remark. you speak of the ‘invention’ of tilting wave fronts and call this particle behavior. Bending of wave fronts is not an invention, it is an observed phenomenon and nature does it all the time when light hits another medium and gets reflected or refracted. May you do it as a rethoric, because I do really not understand that you insist on calling this PARTICLE behavior as this bending is clearly how WAVES propagate in space.

It is the other way round: in classical mechanics a particle that would be sitting on the bottom of the mirror and then got a push from below would travel with travel with your sqrt(c^2+v^2). So in a sense you are the one that is reintroducing particle behavior in a wave phenomenon..

Armand
Light that is locked in between 2 mirrors is increased by the positive feedback. Therefore, light moving forth and back between mirrors becomes larger than incoming light by a value we call Q-factor. This is caused by resonance.
If you fire a cannon from a boat moving transverse to the cannon you find that the bullet takes a direction dependent on the boat’s speed. (Particle behavior). However, if you fire a laser in the same way the speed of the boat is irrelevant. (Wave behavior). So, Michelson assumed wave behavior in both arms and Poitier changed to particle behavior in only one arm.
Interpretation of MMX in Fig 1 is easier, since light moves forth and back in the same track instead of moving transverse to mirror.
A motion c in the ether’s becomes sqrt(c^2+v^2) when you represent the same phenomenon in a different frame. This is not particle behavior.
You say that there is a bending when light is reflected by the beam splitter but the light will be reflected by the beam splitter once again when reflected towards the detector. If this had some relevance it would be compensated in the second reflection. How large is this bending.
Stellar aberration is caused by a transformation from Sun’s frame to Earth’ frame. The effect is caused by planetary motion u that is about 100 times the effect v in MMX. Ether wind inside a wave front cannot bend a wave front.
Have you realized the distinction between ray and beam?
Regards from
John-Erik

I know what standing waves, resonance, Q and all are. Could you first please specificly address the questions I asked.

– Do you have a reference to a source that confirms that standing waves have been observed in MMX (i.e measurement of this Q-factor).
– Define to what reference frame the waves are standing: ether versus lab, for both transverse and longitudinal arm.
– How would the observation of standing waves at the detector give you any information about the difference of the time-travelled in both arms? How would you induce your idea that time dilation is non existent?
– In fig 1. you depict standing waves in transverse arm. Why do they go at speed c then?

In answer to your question regarding beams and rays.
I don’t know of any formal definition in PHYSICS of a beam. I would assume it is a bunch of rays and a ray is the radial/normal vector of a spherical/planar wave front. As I interpret from fig 1. a beam is a Galilean transformation of wave fronts, which I find problematic as it would violate a very important postulate in Physics: All natural laws are the same for all observers. The Huygens-Fresnel wave front principle would not be satisfied when shifting to another observer in your theory. May you could elaborate on the distinction as well as I might not have understood it well enough.

Armand
Late MM tests have been done with cooled down optical cavities where Q-value becommes relevant. In earlier tests – as you say – there are no standing waves in the interferometer, only in the laser. In tests with cavities no beam splitter is necessary, and the result is still zero. When you use a laser it is the standing waves inside the laser that define wave front orientations. This orientation is defined by the normal to the wave fronts, the ray direction. This direction is not real but an important tool defining c the normal to the real wave front. The ray is all that is relevant in coherent systems, and beam c+v is only observable as max amplitude in focused light.

It is important, as you see in Fig 1, that a transverse ether wind cannot bend a wave front. Therefore, you must realize that we always use the ray concept in coherent systems. So, transverse ether wind has no relevance in relation to stellar aberration. Instead we can see this effect by realizing that the same phenomenon must have a changed representation in the frame of our planet moving with speed u notv.

I think that a beam splitter can alter the ray direction in the way that you suggest in only one arm. However, what we are searching is an effect that changes in the same way in both arms when they happens to be oriented transverse, or longitudinal, to ether wind. However, it is not impossible that Potier had a mptivation of this kind. However, if so he would probably have given a more detailed motivation, so it is not very probable.

This is not important since we have got the same zero result without a beam splitter. So the present interpretation GAMMA effecting time and space (or length). The alternative is no GAMMA effect on time and squaered GAMMA effect on length (not on space). I do not trust all natural laws to be the same for all observers. This generalization can be false (a black swan). You cannot conclude impossibility from many failures.

I regard GAMMA squred more plausble since it is equal to the reduction in 2-way speed of light. 2 atoms in crystal inform each other regarding their positions by means of effects that they produce on the ether and these effects move with 2-way light speed between the kernels. This fact makes GAMMA squared plausible. So, i regard MMX to support Galilean transform.

You say there is no definition of beam. Since we have not observed the distinction between ray and beam we have not understood light waves and wave fronts. So, Potier’s interpretation of MMX produced the wave or particle confusion, time dilation and the absurd Lorentz transform.

John-Erik,
I must assume that the waves are standing relative to the lab frame, as you did still not define that explicitly. As for the transverse arm: I agree that ether wind does not bend wave fronts (seen from the lab). Even Potier would agree as he derived his sqrt (c^2-v^2) exactly from this notion. However, seen from the ether frame they do bend as I’ve proved in applying the Huygens-Fresnel principle on a moving mirror. A Galilean transformation that moves from lab to ether frame would never bring about this bending which nevertheless is real. It would produce your fig 1. Instead and this is problematic in several ways:

1. Wave fronts after Galilean transformation do not satisfy Huygens-Fresnel principle, so it is dark where you draw light.
2. You needed to invent something for the occasion called ‘a beam’ in order to avoid clocks stop from working at all.
3. Someone moving with the mirror does not observe the same laws as someone seeing the mirror move.

As for my last objection, you will probably shrug your shoulders and say ´same laws for all observers´ was Einstein’s thing and it does not hold then. But this relativity principle goes way back before the time Einstein defined it and it has been implicitly used in physics for centuries. It seems to be a deep way of how nature works and this would also be the case in a world according to you as it holds true for all phenomenons in nature, like mechanics, electricity, magnetism and what’s more. O, wait: just not for light.

Another nagging problem is standing waves in the longitudinal arm. I think classically they could only exist in the ether frame as forward speed needs to be equal to the opposite of the return speed (so c = – (-c) is true for the ether frame). If this condition is not met you won’t get standing waves as you can easily check mathematically: you don’t get a function that splits time and space in separate cosine factors. Now, in the lab frame you gave for forward and return speeds the following values: c+/-v. These are clearly not same-but-opposite.

So, I think classically standing waves in longitudinal arm are non-existent. Yet you talk of new experiments (reference to sources, please?) that also have null results for the difference. For the difference of what? Real world lasers with standing waves work in any direction. In your world they would only work in this special transverse ether wind direction. Lasers that work anyway the wind v blows are a strong case against your idea but in full support of the absoluteness of the speed of light c.

Now some final words about your claim that Potier used particle reasoning. As for the direction of light: wave fronts have physical reality but they don’t have a material reality like sticks. Wave fronts are nothing more than points in space and time where light is in the same phase, or in other words, happens to be at the same time. You could do a careless Galilean transformation on a stick as do you do not need to worry much about its bending. This stick has permanence and can also have an unbent existence when cut through in the new frame – albeit at different times for the far ends. But this isn’t true at all for wave fronts which are same-time events and form an Eucledian line as seen from a specific reference frame. You need to worry how they are still same-time from your new reference frame.

Same problem with the magnitude of light. Potiers realized correctly that the speed of light is defined by the properties of the medium only and waves must travel with a fixed speed through that medium. If the ether is drifting then you can add or subtract that drift in the longitudinal direction, no violation of the principle here.

However, if a wave needs to transverse through a drifting ether it can only pick the right direction to compensate for that drift since it cannot change its fixed speed c relative to the ether. Crossing a flowing river to the opposite spot on the other bank wouldn’t make you a faster swimmer than in the swimming pool, would it? So, a wave must choose an upstream direction for its speed c that just compensates this sideways drift whilst traversing. For the transverse direction you can now derive sqrt (c^2-v^2).

But you are saying it is going to cross the ether with sqrt (c^2 +v^2) in order to traverse with speed c. That is not possible, the ether does not allow for that speed (you have not become a faster swimmer than in the pool). Your result makes me think of how a cannon ball would go through ether, without any speed limit imposed on it (classically). So, ironically it is not Potier, it is you that use sticks and cannon balls (particles) instead of following the rules for waves propagation.

I’ve been avoiding the last comment for some posts now as I prefer to attack more specifically, but it had to come eventually: with your Galilean transformations Maxwell’s equations will stop working. This whole body of all electric and magnetic phenomenons standing rock solid since 1850, you ‘trust them not to be true’ either? You say that “You cannot conclude impossibility from many failures” and I couldn’t agree more. Einstein might not be right but I believe you didn’t proof that at all and you cannot back up these strong claims in your writings. If you’re prepared to throw the body of physics at the scrap heap in exchange for the existence of some hypothetical stuff that no one ever observered, then yes, no one could proof you wrong either. I cannot disapprove the existence of Santa Clause as you keep telling me that I didn’t look at the right places yet. All physics of the late centuries could be a big delusion and you could be right. Everything is possible, but only so much is probable.

It is a pitty that no one else has stepped into the discussion.
I wish you good luck,
Armand

Armand
You are making a great mistake by saying that sqrt(c^2+^2) is not possible. Since you have assumed c+/-v in longitudinal arm you must have sqrt(c^2+v^2) in transverse arm orthogonal to the other arm. This follows from speed c in relation to the ether. Remember that the vector c does not change in reality and the vector v changes 90 degrees. No wave front bending in reality defined by the ether but apparent in the equipment’s frame due to transformation of coordinates. So, you are wrong the bending is not real but an illusion. Therefore, my diagram nr 2 is correct. The wrong sign (- instead of +) is a consequence of not seeing that c is conserved not c+v. v is ~10^-6.
The same mistake (sign error) is found in the interpretation of stellar aberration. Light moving with velocity c represented in a frame moving with velocity u transverse to c gets the speed sqrt(c^2+u^2). u is ~10^-4.
I said that standing waves in later MMX experiments with cooled down cavities and not in traditional interferometers. However, if you use lasers they appear in the laser. In most derivations spherical wave fronts have been used and produced, in error, a wave front bending. I regard it possible that the bending in the beam splitter can be as you say. However, you must remember the most advanced experiments regarding MMX have been done without beam splitter.
It is important to see that we that we must have 2 models for light propagation and that fact does not stop clocks from working. If you detect based on phase you can only see the normal to the wave front and ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant. If you use focused light the real motion of light is visible as the direction of max intensity. To assume beam equal to ray is a great error and has caused the wave or particle paradox.
MMX have not given anything to empirical physics. However, speculations in what should be expected has caused problems in physics. Maxwell’s (or Faraday’s) equations are not complete, since the representation of the ether wind is absent.
Your ideas that lasers would work only specific directions nonsens not at all related to my ideas that we need 2 models for light propagation and only one model (wave) structure.
You are wrong when allowing the speed c+v but not sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the same frame.
After lifelong studies of physics the ether was found important by a physics professor although denied by a young patent clerk many years earlier.
It is a pity that you do not see the need distiction between real and apparent direction of light. This the reason to the wave or paricle paradox.
With best regards from
John-Erik

Just one last attempt to make you see that Potier was right, I use an example.

I am a swimmer and have fixed speed c in the water. I cross (perpendicual) the swimming pool of a widh L and this takes me L/c=t seconds. Now the swimming pool is put on rails and it can move sideways (to the way I swim) with speed v. My target is to arrive at an opposite spot with respect to the land (not the moving swimming pool).

In my first try I start swimming as I did before (perpendicual direction to the swimming pool). I arrive at the other side of the pool again in L/c seconds only to find out that I missed the opposite spot on LAND that is now L/c*v downstream of me. This is because the swimming pool moved the water whith me in it during my crossing.

Then I think of a new strategy: I start swimming in a direction that is pointed upstream and after some trials I find just the right angle that makes me end up at the opposite spot (on land). Now, my swimming speed in the water has remained c (as I cannot swim any faster) but, as it is angled, it now has a component in the opposite direction the swimming pool moves. This component must be of course -v in order to compensate for the pool and water with me in it moving v. This way I go in a straight line with respect to the land and I will land at the opposite spot. How fast will I be going in that direction? Just Pythagoras of a right triangle with hypotenuse c, horizontal side v and a vertical component x. This x = sqrt (c^2 MINUS v^2). The time I need to get across is now L/x.

In your reasoning the hypothenuse is sqrt (c^2 PLUS v^2) and since this hypothenuse is the same as the speed that I swim in the water this can not be: I can only go c…

Armand
I hope you had a nice swim. The first trip was OK. However, your new strategy was not a good idea. You had to use old Pythagoras theorem and make intricate calculations to find out in what direction to swim. The result of these calculations is that you had to swim a longer time. So, you applied Pythagoras idea in negative direction. Pythagoras would cry if he could see this.

Sorry to say is that light does not know about Pythagoras and therefore cannot do this stupid corrections. Light cannot and has no reason to do this correction. So light always takes the fastest (not the shortest) way between the mirrors. Therefore, no effect in the transverse arm. According to the wave model light behavior does not depend on the source speed in any of the arms as Michelson said. Nothing is changed in the ether’s (the relevant) frame. No effect in transverse arm. Instead bending is an illusion in the equipment’s frame.

Your idea regarding the bending in the beam splitter is probably correct but (as I said) not relevant, since the same bending reappears after turning the equipment 90 degrees. This bending has therefore no effect on the measurements.

So, it is an old illusion that light itself can change behavior due to transverse ether wind. Instead wave front orientation is conserved and transverse ether wind is irrelevant. Light has not that kind of intelligence and this illusion (based on particle thinking) produced the wave or particle confusion when Einstein was a child.

Wow, what an odd and unscientific response? Light doesn’t know about cosines and yet it follows this ‘stupid’ function anyway. You call Pythagoras intricate? You would be surprised what other advanced mathematical tricks light has up its sleeve. Very old but still great introductory lessons on the (mathematical) properties of light can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9nPMFBhzsI (although by now I fear that you would just discard Richard Feynman as ignorant too).

I now stop this discussion as I can’t make you understand the flaws in your ideas. Good luck!

GREAT CONFUSION IS STILL PRODUCED AFTER EINSTEIN IS LONG DEAD
(sorry I couldn’t resist, these silly sound bytes statements are meaningless for a discussion).

The reason I involved Feynman is that he shows in these lectures how miraculously light behaves. It finds the minimum of all possible path-integrals all over space , at the speed of light. Of course, light is not intentional at all it is just a mathematical model that adequately describes a physical reality (like your fastest path). So if you thought Pythagoras was a ridicule or stupid….. watch these! it is also fun. I want to thank you very much also for the challenges and discussions! Regards, Armand

In a refractor light takes the fastest way. This is valid in relation to reflectors also. So, light behaves in accordance to your first swim, as I said. Therefore, no effect in the transverse arm, as I said. SO, we can use doubled contraction of bodies (not space) and do it without time dilation.

John-Erik, I was puzzled why you added, “and the twin paradox, are both results of Potier’s paper.” If you were speaking in the sense that “and Special Relativity, are both results of Potier’s paper”, then I’d agree as without Special Relativity there would be no Twin Paradox. But given that Special Relativity is a currently accepted theory, then analysis of the Twin Paradox that leads to showing that Special Relativity cannot be describing proper time accumulation rates or directly describing what’s happening physically is independent of Potier’s interpretation and Michaelson’s interpretation..

Separately, you write, “wave fronts always are parallel to mirrors in MMX. This means NO effect in the transverse arm”. However, accepting the 1st part of this quote does not mean that the transverse arm would not be subject to length contraction and, hence, the wave fronts would have less distance to traverse.

Separately, you write, “Poitier’s error [interpretation] supported the Lorentz transform”. Lorentz’s original LTs (with absolute v) have a totally different physics interpretation than Einstein’s version of the LTs (with relative v) – I mention this as several prominent physicists have been diverted down the wrong path by not truly understanding this distinction. But Yes, both, very different, versions of the LTs were inspired by the MMX results. However, note that tons of data from GPS are in agreement with the time transformations in the original Lorentz interpretations of the LTs (but that same GPS data shows that ALL interpretations of Special Relativity are invalid.),

I am searching for the truth regarding Potier/Michelson debate at a time where no one of the many relativity theories did exist. Michelson correctly assumed wave behavior independent of source motion in both arms of the MMX equipment. Therefore, unchanged behavior in relation to the ether and orientation cannot be changed, although motion is changed. Transverse ether wind is irrelevant and orientation is conserved, as I have described is many papers. This is the important distinction between beam and ray that no one really has commented on. It is a pity. The reason is explained in Fig 1 and in Fig 2 you can see how a wrong diagram has been presented in all textbooks for 130 years. Potier could not see the difference between ray and beam. Therefore, he assumed that light always moves in a right angle to the wave fronts. He missed an important wave property (in coherent systems). He was influenced by particle thinking.

Einstein was a child and no one talked about relativity at that time. This is the reason that I do not discuss time dilation at that time.

Michelson’s prediction does not need a GAMMA factor. Instead we can use GAMMA squared to represent contraction of physical bodies (not space). This is very logical since atoms in a crystal inform each other regarding position by their effects on the ether and these effects are moving with light speed between atoms. So, atomic separation is proportional to 2-way light speed and MMX is a useless ether detector. When contraction of matter is doubled we no longer need dilation of time. Puh!!! We can use the simple Galilean transform. We can also forget the small contraction of matter since it is hidden in the definition of the meter unit.

The irrelevance of transverse ether wind means also that stellar aberration is an effect of observer motion – not of ether wind.

Without time dilation we easily can explain clock behavior by the fact that bound electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. Acceleration along the ether wind means different speeds in the 2 directions transverse to ether wind, clock speed becomes proportional to GAMMA squared. Instead of SRT plus GRT GPS clocks can be explained by effects of ether winds of equal magnitude in radial and tangential directions to orbits. Lack of stabilization in tangential direction means that we must reduce by a factor of 2 in order to get unification with GPS results.

You said that GPS allows SET but not SRT. This means only that LET is possible, but not that it is necessary. In my opinionall relativity thoeries are. The fact that they are many have made them difficult to disprove.

GPS’ high precision demands spherical symmetry in ether wind and the radial ether wind can explain gravity. Gravity from distant bodies cause Earth to move in order to neutralize gravity. (Small exceptions regarding Sun and Moon, since their contributions are not the same all over our planet).